The philosophies of men mingled with the philosophies of women.

TribTalk Reactions

I have mixed feelings about the LDS church’s press conference earlier this week. I’m especially disappointed my home state of Idaho immediately defeated adding LGBT protections to our nondiscrimination bill that was up for vote the next day.

I was excited to hear Elders Christofferson and Oaks agreed to a TribTalk over Google Chat with Jennifer Napier-Pearce from the SL Tribune yesterday. If you haven’t seen it yet, I highly recommend it. I would say it was 1000x more helpful than the press conference. For someone who sits in her church meetings and regularly hears fellow members comment that no “good Mormon” could ever support gay rights or gay marriage, I was particularly interested if those questions would be addressed. I know there are a lot of Mormons who had negative reactions to the TribTalk, but I want to celebrate the progress I saw:

They referred to gay marriage laws as being exactly like alcohol laws, it is a law of the land that doesn’t match our standards of belief. This has been my main rationale for supporting the legislation, for those who choose not to believe what I believe, I support them being able to act on their beliefs (like those who drink alcohol).

Not once in the press conference or the TribTalk were people referred to as same sex attracted. I heard the words gay, lesbian, transgender, and LGBT. That is progress.

LDS members may have a variety of opinions on the matter, they may support gay marriage and LGBT rights as long as they aren’t publicly advocating against the church.

Over the next few months the http://www.mormonsandgays.com website will be redone and rolled out. It has been a common complaint that the site was never mentioned or linked from lds.org homepage.

Elder Oaks addressed an LDS mother who kicked out her LGBT child and wrote a letter to him, he called her to repentance and told her to develop a loving relationship with her child.

Stated religious leaders will have to compromise and not get every protection that they want, in the same way they hope the other side will compromise to reach an agreeable solution.

Acknowledged the church used to recommend heterosexual marriage for LGBT saints, and they have discontinued the practice and we will no longer do so. (parents of LGBT take note)

Admitted they have a lot of work to do in addressing transgender issues, and will address it.

To me this is marked progress even from a year ago. I thought it was of note to see apostles doing interviews over social media, it felt kind of historic. Did you see it? What were your reactions?

I agree, I hadn’t thought of that. Elder Christofferson > PR every time. I did have to roll my eyes after some news outlets lead with the headline that “LDS Church Supports LGBT Rights” the Mormon Newsroom with “LDS Church’s Landmark Address on Religious Freedom.” Then they issued a press release how disappointed they were that news outlets weren’t using headlines they wanted them to. Really PR? Really??

Also Oaks doubled down on the “we don’t seek apologies” in an NPR interview yesterday when he claimed, “We were really the victims of Prop 8…” Sigh.

I’m disappointed that the Trib did not ask my question (Patriots or Seahawks?). But seriously, it was a good event. It’s now kosher to say “gay” instead of SSA. And members can actively support SSM so long as they do not actively attack the church.

There’s a lot of consternation right now about the church’s position. Here’s how I best summarize it. The church is cool with state and federal legislatures enacting anti-discrimination laws. However, the church very much wants such laws to contain exceptions for religious belief and expression. Church leaders are not going to get drawn into taking stances on this or that hypothetical, they just want to preach basic principles.

I respect that. However, I also think it amounts to fairly little in the long term. For these laws the devil will very much be in the details. So we’ll see. I don’t expect the church to take any more of a specific stance unless cases arises that directly affect the church – such as BYU housing or boy scouts.

On a related note, everyone needs to pay close attention to how the Supreme Court rules in June on the SSM cases. Yes, most assume they will declare SSM for the whole country. But a lot rides on how they do it. If they rule on due process grounds, the decision will be limited to marriage rights. However, if they rule on equal protection grounds – in essence finding that sexual orientation is a protected class due to historical discrimination, just like religion, race, sex, etc. – then the ruling would go beyond marriage and significantly limit legislatures’ ability to allow religious exceptions.

I was elated that the questions asked seemed to not have been approved prior to the interview.

My disdain for Elder Oaks, unfortunately, precludes me from giving him any credit for anything positive regarding the LGBT issue.

In response to his calling the mother to repentance for kicking her son out of her family, I only quote his pathetic wisdom from the Oaks-Wickman interview a few years ago, where he said, “I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

Elder Oaks, if you ever come to my house, I won’t introduce you to my friends either.

On other thing surprised me. At one point Elder Oaks said that he was personally unaware of any disciplinary councils held regarding members who had crossed the line into advocacy and attacking the church. He went so far as to say (my paraphrase) “I’m sure I’d know if there were some because you [SL Trib] would have report on them.”

So two points: (1) apparently Oaks pays attention to the Trib, and (2) amazingly Oaks has not seen any of the dozen+ Trib articles about Kate Kelly, OW, and Dehlin.

Kristine, I had a similar reaction. The press conference on Tuesday made me piping mad. But Oaks and Christofferson both communicated their intentions and concerns much better in the Trib Talk interview. I was annoyed at some of what they said, but the overall spirit of the interview seemed very different to me than the spirit of the press conference. The NPR interview was too short to be a real discussion and Oaks did not comport himself as well in that forum. So many kudos to Jennifer Napier Pearce for asking the difficult questions so directly and sympathetically. She did am amazing job.

Members need to hear Elder Oaks say, “It does get pretty murky pretty quick.” There is nothing murky about the way the LDS correlated message is portrayed, but the application of the gospel in real life IS murky. We need more murky!!!

#8 (Nate) wrote: { There is nothing murky about the way the LDS correlated message is portrayed, but the application of the gospel in real life IS murky. We need more murky! }. Kee-rack! Over the back row of the bleachers! Hence why as offspring of Heavenly Father (and Mother), we have minds to THINK (“come, let us reason together”), and hearts to FEEL (Mr. Spock was right, “logic” is a tweeting bird…and flowers..that smell bad!”). One of my “top five” scriptures sez it so well (D&C 58:26-27).

Interesting are but two points brought up so far: (1) Elder Oaks calling a woman who pulls the “I have NO son!” routine to repentance. I’m more crass…I’d have just said, “get off your self-righteous high horse and lighten up, he is STILL your son!” and (2) Don’t expect me to endorse your LGBT lifestyle and have your ‘partner’ as an overnight guest in the same bedroom (IMO, this is OK as long as you maintain the same standard for an heterosexual couple that ‘live in sin”). Two competing ideas, but both with a desire to live IAW the commandments – to love our children with long suffering just as Heavenly Father suffers long with us all, and to insist that the law(s) of Chastity be observed in the confines of one’s home.

I’ve actually faced this situation with my erstwhile brother-in-law who is gay. AFAIK, his partner was always welcome when they visited but with separate accommodations. Had he been living with a woman, I’d have insisted on the same arrangement. To their credit, they ‘toned it down’ so as to not offend me, and frankly, there were better things to discuss than THEIR private lives!

Well this is interesting and hopeful, a series of losses have finally forced these brethren out of the OT certitude of the “Lords” absolute black/white win/loss harsh tones into the NT grace of nuance, tolerance and compromise (in order to remain in the conversation). It must have been a very humbling condescension for attorney Oaks. Packer’s legacy may actually beat him to the grave! Thank God!